Prosecution’s case against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse ... BLOWN up

[BADecker]

The BLM bad guy just couldn't condemn Kyle to a bad life in prison. His sympathy made him answer with the truth.

Do you see what many attorneys are? Damn the truth! It's the money and the power.


Prosecution’s case against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse appears to have BLOWN up after frank admission by wounded attacker

Prosecutors in Kenosha, Wis., likely thought they had an open-and-shut case of murder and attempted murder against Kyle Rittenhouse, the then-17-year-old teen who shot and killed two rioters while wounding a third in August 2020 as parts of the city burned following the shooting of an unarmed black man by police.

But on Monday their dreams of getting a quick and easy conviction fell apart thanks to one of their ‘star’ witnesses, who admitted that he was pointing his own gun at Rittenhouse just an instant before the teen defended himself with his AR-15 rifle.

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun – now your hand’s down, pointed at him – that he fired, right?” defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi asked witness Gaige Grosskreutz. To which he replied: “Correct.”

Watch this:

Viva Frei
@thevivafrei
Rittenhouse trial should be over immediately.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1457774701673996298

...

[Gyfts]

Never seen so much sympathy for an antifa scumbag and a convicted pedophile, hope Mr. Joseph Rosenbuam is resting peacefully.

As Tucker Carlson put it succinctly - https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1458603356721541126

He died how he lived, touching an unwilling minor.

All this trial needs is a jury that will look at the evidence, acquit Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges. Not much hope for the US legal system, with kangaroo courts dominating the judicial system, but when the prosecutorial witnesses admits to holding a gun up to the defendants head, there doesn't leave many options. Self defense is self defense!

[franky1]

1. rittenhouse was underage and shouldnt have had a gun
2. a business called him to protect a dealership. pfft. any mature adult would not phone a kid with no security experience to drive miles to another town to protect a property thats not the kids
3. rittenhouse(a kid) again for emphasis should not have even been in the town let alone with a gun

4. if throwing a plastic bag is a deadly threat.. then massacres are going to be more common

5. after shooting someone for throwing a bag. ofcourse its going to escalate where people seeing this will start to give chase to stop the immature idiot from killing others.

6.. so lets get this straight.. the defense once to say
someone throwing a non lethal object is excusable to get shot with a lethal object. and then when other people try to disarm the idiot shooter. they are fair game to get shot too... sorry no.
idiot kid should have surrendered. and took his punishment.

[Gyfts]

1. rittenhouse was underage and shouldnt have had a gun
2. a business called him to protect a dealership. pfft. any mature adult would not phone a kid with no security experience to drive miles to another town to protect a property thats not the kids
3. rittenhouse(a kid) again for emphasis should not have even been in the town let alone with a gun

4. if throwing a plastic bag is a deadly threat.. then massacres are going to be more common

5. after shooting someone for throwing a bag. ofcourse its going to escalate where people seeing this will start to give chase to stop the immature idiot from killing others.

6.. so lets get this straight.. the defense once to say
someone throwing a non lethal object is excusable to get shot with a lethal object. and then when other people try to disarm the idiot shooter. they are fair game to get shot too... sorry no.
idiot kid should have surrendered. and took his punishment.

1. That doesn't mean he doesn't get to shoot a raging pedophile that is chasing after him.

2. Doesn't matter if he was asked be there, but he was asked to be there anyways.

3. Yeah, agreed. The rioters shouldn't have been there either.

4. That wasn't the deadly threat, it was chasing after the kid trying to take his gun from him.

5. Do you recall from testimony where the guy said to the kid "if I catch you alone I'm going to kill you" earlier in the night?

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

[franky1]

(1) wow so kyle managed to do a criminal records check and psychiatric assessment on a guy weilding a carrier bag.
.. reality is in a world of 2 people one with a gun and one with a bag.. the guy with a gun cant play victim.

(2) so if trump asked you to break into capital hill.. ud do it, no question
so if someone asked you to jump off a bridge, ud jump
so if an adult drug dealer asked a kid to be a drug mule/street hustler, its all fair and no criminal act occured involving the adult dealer
maybe the adult that owns the car dealership should also be prosecuted, much like how a husband hires a hitman to kill their wife. or a gang leader employees kids to do the street deals.

(4) unarmed people chasing an armed kid. and your not asking why they are chasing him and trying to take away his gun
whats next a kid walks into a school with a gun and if the teachers try to disarm the kid before he shoots, the kid gains rights to kill everyone('coz they tried to take my gun from me)... um no thats not how real world, morals, logic and laws work

(5) did you hear the testimony where the kid who shouldnt have a gun , had a gun.. and was waving it around at unarmed people.
are those unarmed people suppose to be happy and content with being threatened when they were unarmed?

(6)unhinged mob?
a unarmed guy got shot and other people wanted to disarm him
i dont think you are noticing the morals
if someone shoots an unarmed person. the rational act is to disarm the one with the gun. not treat the only person with a gun as a victim


seems in gyfts local neighbourhood if you want to get away with murder. you have 3 loop holes
1. claim a carrier bag was a threat to life
2. play victim if anyone tried to disarm you, saying being disarmed is a defensive reason to kill anyone that tries
3. pretend you done a criminal record check and a medical check on anyone trying to disarm you, saying you killed them because they are a criminal you knew about before shooting them

in a rational world away from gyfts neighbourhood.
if someone with a gun points it at unarmed people, its the unarmed peoples right to defend themselves

[Gyfts]

(5) did you hear the testimony where the kid who shouldnt have a gun , had a gun.. and was waving it around at unarmed people.
are those unarmed people suppose to be happy and content with being threatened when they were unarmed?

I don't think he should've been there, that doesn't mean you get to kill someone who has a gun. And no, there isn't evidence he was "waving the gun" at people. Post if it you have it, because it doesn't exist.

Did you hear the testimony where Joseph Rosenbaum was *chasing* after someone who attempted to get away? And then he jumped and lunged for the person's firearm?

Tell me, franky, if you are threatened by someone's gun, and they haven't pointed it at you, your reaction is to run at them, chase them down, throw something at them while chasing, say "fuck you" while chasing (not disputed by the prosecution)?

(6)unhinged mob?
a unarmed guy got shot and other people wanted to disarm him
i dont think you are noticing the morals
if someone shoots an unarmed person. the rational act is to disarm the one with the gun. not treat the only person with a gun as a victim

And how do they know the shooting was or was not justified? They made that assumption? You don't get to chase someone down and deliver justice based on an assumption. Their assumption was wrong.

So yes, in a rational world, you are allowed to run away from a threat and only use force if you have to. Kid had to use force, he was being hunted.

[OgNasty]

Never seen so much sympathy for an antifa scumbag and a convicted pedophile

It is interesting how the anti-conservatives seem to always be taking the side of pedophiles and other mentally ill individuals.  I recently saw a statistic that showed more than half of white liberal women between the age of 19-29 have been diagnosed with a mental illness.  It is the highest risk group.  If you are a liberal white woman between the age of 19-29 the odds are that you are mentally ill.  If you aren't mentally ill, you have beaten the odds...  I think a lot of people should keep this in mind when seeing responses from certain members of this community who fit this demographic to a T. 

[Gyfts]

Never seen so much sympathy for an antifa scumbag and a convicted pedophile

It is interesting how the anti-conservatives seem to always be taking the side of pedophiles and other mentally ill individuals.  I recently saw a statistic that showed more than half of white liberal women between the age of 19-29 have been diagnosed with a mental illness.  It is the highest risk group.  If you are a liberal white woman between the age of 19-29 the odds are that you are mentally ill.  If you aren't mentally ill, you have beaten the odds...  I think a lot of people should keep this in mind when seeing responses from certain members of this community who fit this demographic to a T. 

It reminds me of this Gallup poll data where 5.6 percent of the US identifies as LGBT, with one in six of <24 identifying as LGBT.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

I don't see this trend in countries outside of the US. I assume only because the tribalism is so large in the US, and that it's becoming socially and culturally the norm to identify as whatever letter of the alphabet. It could be untreated mental illness too, but to me it's just a fad that will run its course and phase away. But, still, the number will rise before it goes back down. What does will the peak be?

[_Miracle]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

[PrimeNumber7]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happing.

Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. He shot three people who were trying to actively harm him. The people that were trying to harm Rittenhouse were using deadly force and were the instigators of the confrontations.

Rittenhouse was trying to protect the community that the BLM terrorists were trying to burn down.

[_Miracle]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. He shot three people who were trying to actively harm him. The people that were trying to harm Rittenhouse were using deadly force and were the instigators of the confrontations.

Rittenhouse was trying to protect the community that the BLM terrorists were trying to burn down.

I didn't call him an "active shooter".

"Community" ?
He went armed with an AK into someone else's community to protect property against people.

I don't believe that all Black Lives Matters protestors are "terrorists" and there's plenty of irony here since the Trayvon Martin case was its catalyst.

Rittenhouse has plenty of Alt-right adjacent supporters to help fund his legal campaign: he is being well represented and things like that will continue to twist our sense of community in America.

[Gyfts]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

He did the world a favor by killing a pedophile. What don't you get about self defense? Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone? You know, it strikes me as odd that the US constitution can have the right to bear arms written in plain English, yet when someone decides to practice that right, it's an act of moral corruption. May as well erode the entire constitution while you're at it. It's getting old anyways. 2 centuries, hell of a run.

[BADecker]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

He did the world a favor by killing a pedophile. What don't you get about self defense? Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone? You know, it strikes me as odd that the US constitution can have the right to bear arms written in plain English, yet when someone decides to practice that right, it's an act of moral corruption. May as well erode the entire constitution while you're at it. It's getting old anyways. 2 centuries, hell of a run.

Attorneys are officers of the court. The judge is their boss. They need to know what they are talking about if they oppose their boss. They might lose their job or worse if they defy their judge. This is why a good attorney can't file a major claim against his judge.

One of the greatest maxims of court law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. If Rittenhouse went home to sleep in his own bed after the shootings, it was because he was innocent until proven guilty. If he has spent any time in jail at all, it was because all law enforcement and attorneys and judges involved broke their oath of office. The major law is, innocent until proven guilty, and they swear to uphold it... not innocent until there are a bunch of people who think that he could or might be proven guilty.

Kyle's attorneys must go along with guilty until proven innocent, because they might lose their job.

Properly done, a claim should be filed by Kyle against the attorneys and judges for the innocent until proven guilty thing. Kyle should stand as a man, without the attorneys being able to speak officially in court, but only as co-counsel to advises him on what to say. Same for the judges and attorneys who broke their oaths of office by holding Kyle guilty until proven innocent. Kyle could negate everything done against him if he stood this way.

A further trick is that under common law, Kyle can't even speak because he is under age. His Dad would have to do the actual speaking, which could easily change the whole operation of the court.

[_Miracle]

He did the world a favor by killing a pedophile. What don't you get about self defense? Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone? You know, it strikes me as odd that the US constitution can have the right to bear arms written in plain English, yet when someone decides to practice that right, it's an act of moral corruption. May as well erode the entire constitution while you're at it. It's getting old anyways. 2 centuries, hell of a run.

"What don't you get about self defense?"
We don't agree so I'm failing to "get something".


"Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone?"
You don't think an open carry of an assault rifle at a protest could be perceived as a provoking action? I do.


"It strikes me as odd" that you equate the right to bear arms with the use of deadly force against another citizen, and how often people disjoint that right from the responsibility of gun ownership and btw it's an amendment that I support and exercise.

 but since we're on the subject of "The Constitution"
and "moral corruption"...
it's a short (and extraordinary) document , there is more to it than the 2nd amendment.

The modern world owes much to to the ideal of inalienable rights put forth by our founding fathers, in the review of history it is not a secret that they failed to live up to their own stated idea of "the moral equality of human beings": I feel compelled to strive for that.


I don't have empathy for modern "conservatives" getting triggered by the Black Lives Matters movement especially the (Tucker Carlson) segment of the population that feels they are currently being discriminated against. <---- this takes an extra amount of willful ignorance not to recognize the struggles of your fellow humans
 or indifference unless it's happening to you or a flat out racist need for a sense of supremacy.
So that's how far apart we are on "getting each other" on this topic.


BADecker, you have good points on this one.

We have a judge who doesn't allow those killed by Rittenhouse to be referred to as "victims" because it creates bias but allows those who died to be referred to as "looters" and "rioters".


I wish the world was a better place and that we humans were better at being humane.

[QuickAccount]

He went armed with an AK into someone else's community to protect property against people.

I don't believe that all Black Lives Matters protestors are "terrorists" and there's plenty of irony here since the Trayvon Martin case was its catalyst.

He had an AR-15, not an AK. They are not the same thing and they shoot completely different rounds. Many of the Black Lives Matter protesters are terrorists. Burning down businesses, beating up police and civilians, and destroying property is not the way to get your "peaceful" point across.

[libertasbella]

Never seen so much sympathy for an antifa scumbag and a convicted pedophile, hope Mr. Joseph Rosenbuam is resting peacefully.

That's an important demographic for the Democrats, so naturally their media lapdogs are on the job.

[theymos]

Rittenhouse was very stupid to put himself into this position. If I'd known him and he'd told me he was going to go into the middle of a riot armed, I'd say, "Are you braindead? You're either going to get killed or arrested." But he was 17, so how much wisdom can you expect out of him? It seems that he put himself into this position partially out of a desire to help people (which is laudable), probably moreso out of ego, but certainly not with the intention of hurting anyone.

It's always a tragedy when anyone dies. The first guy who Rittenhouse shot seems to have been a seriously messed up, violent person who bore full fault in that confrontation, though even his death is a tragedy. The second and third shootings were especially tragic since it seems that they might've honestly thought that Rittenhouse was some sort of mass murderer going on a shooting spree. That said, it's clear to me that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot them: they were clearly trying to kill or severely hurt him, and Rittenhouse did not provoke them. It doesn't matter in Rittenhouse's case what the people attacking him thought they were doing.

I hope that he's acquitted of all charges, and the evidence strongly supports that, though I would understand the "recklessly endangering public safety" charges sticking, since open-carrying during a riot obviously turns up the temperature. (I would not agree with him being found guilty of reckless endangerment: the appearance of a riot shouldn't negate your right to defend yourself and your property. But it's a much more understandable charge than saying that he wasn't acting in self-defense in the shootings themselves.)

Rittenhouse's life is pretty much over regardless of the result. He's going to endure harassment and attempts on his life constantly, and his only real career prospect is probably to lean into his history here and become a sort of right-wing celebrity, which is a terrible life to have to lead. What an absolute tragedy all around.

The whole way that this was spun is disgusting. It reminds me a lot of the Zimmerman case, where a Hispanic person who voted for Obama shot someone in obvious self-defense, and this was spun as a "white supremacist hate crime" by politicians as a despicable, cynical way to rile up their base.

[Gyfts]

"What don't you get about self defense?"
We don't agree so I'm failing to "get something".

Well self defense was clearly outlined, so maybe you might've missed something. And it appears you have missed something.

"Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone?"
You don't think an open carry of an assault rifle at a protest could be perceived as a provoking action? I do.

He had a right to open carry. Provocation doesn't include exercising a right to open carry. But, if we want to split hairs, I'd consider provocation to be someone chasing at you, saying "fuck you" and throwing a projectile at you while reaching for the barrel of an AR15. The same guy that said he'd cut someone's heart out at a group Kyle Rittenhouse was part of, the same guy that said to Kyle Rittenhouse if he'd catch him alone he'd kill him.

So that's not provocation?

"It strikes me as odd" that you equate the right to bear arms with the use of deadly force against another citizen, and how often people disjoint that right from the responsibility of gun ownership and btw it's an amendment that I support and exercise.

Yes, turns out you can use rights given to you. Correct me if I'm wrong, is there a country in the world that allows you to own firearms but not use them? Maybe owning them for historical or antique purposes.

Nobody should have been there rioting over BLM, and Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been an impromptu firefighter/medic. But he was there, and so were the people tried to kill him. And, well, we know who came out of there alive.

[PrimeNumber7]

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. He shot three people who were trying to actively harm him. The people that were trying to harm Rittenhouse were using deadly force and were the instigators of the confrontations.

Rittenhouse was trying to protect the community that the BLM terrorists were trying to burn down.

I didn't call him an "active shooter".

"Community" ?
He went armed with an AK into someone else's community to protect property against people.

I don't believe that all Black Lives Matters protestors are "terrorists" and there's plenty of irony here since the Trayvon Martin case was its catalyst.

You said he was "actively shooting" - that is the same as an "active shooter":

someone who is actively shooting.

Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha, he worked there and had other family and friends there. He lived "across state lines" in Illinois with his mother, who had custody of him (at least most of the time).

No, not all BLM protestors are terrorists, some are naive enough to not understand their goals. However, the goal of BLM as an organization is to terrorize people, especially when they roit and "protest". Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic Obama supporter who was lawfully patrolling his community, and Martin instigated an attack against who would ultimately become his killer before Martin reached for his gun.

I hope that he's acquitted of all charges, and the evidence strongly supports that, though I would understand the "recklessly endangering public safety" charges sticking, since open-carrying during a riot obviously turns up the temperature. (I would not agree with him being found guilty of reckless endangerment: the appearance of a riot shouldn't negate your right to defend yourself and your property. But it's a much more understandable charge than saying that he wasn't acting in self-defense in the shootings themselves.)

I think Rittenhouse will either be found guilty on all charges or will be acquitted on all charges. The evidence is strong in favor of a very quick acquittal (there is very little evidence in favor of a guilty verdict).

The criminal complaint against Rittenhouse can be found here. The accusation is that by shooting his AR-15 at the various people he shot (at), Rittenhouse is guilty of either murder, attempted murder, or reckless endangerment. Here is the statute Rittenhouse is charged under for reckless endangerment. It is vague, and I am not sure where the various terms are defined. The relevant self-defense statutes would apply to all of the charges, although the facts would need to be applied individually to each charge (Rittenhouse needed to meet the criteria for self-defense for each time he fired his gun).

Rittenhouse's life is pretty much over regardless of the result. He's going to endure harassment and attempts on his life constantly, and his only real career prospect is probably to lean into his history here and become a sort of right-wing celebrity, which is a terrible life to have to lead. What an absolute tragedy all around.

He is likely not going to be able to live any kind of life resembling what a normal 18-year-old would expect to live. I think he will likely be able to find work though.

Also, a lot of the reason why Rittenhouse sees such dismal life prospects is due to the slander and defamation by far-left politicians who are trying to divide the country and get additional votes from their base. Rittenhouse should be able to get judgments against a lot of the "blue check" mob on twitter and by people like Job Biden, who, without evidence suggested he is a white suppremist, and that he Murdered the two people who died that night.

[cabron]

Rittenhouse's life is pretty much over regardless of the result. He's going to endure harassment and attempts on his life constantly, and his only real career prospect is probably to lean into his history here and become a sort of right-wing celebrity, which is a terrible life to have to lead. What an absolute tragedy all around.

He is likely not going to be able to live any kind of life resembling what a normal 18-year-old would expect to live. I think he will likely be able to find work though.

Also, a lot of the reason why Rittenhouse sees such dismal life prospects is due to the slander and defamation by far-left politicians who are trying to divide the country and get additional votes from their base. Rittenhouse should be able to get judgments against a lot of the "blue check" mob on twitter and by people like Job Biden, who, without evidence suggested he is a white suppremist, and that he Murdered the two people who died that night.

He'll find a job. It's protecting himself is what he will have to worry about after all these. The world will not see it as self-defense when you are out there in the riot and him holding a gun. It's not every day we see a kid having a gun because NORMALLY these days when we see them like that, it's usually a killing spree. I can't believe someone with the guts to shoot could actaully cry like that. Lives are wasted including his.